Search form

You are here

Home » The observation of Miklós Hagyó, 1st accused, to the testimony of Ernő Mesterházy on September 20, 2012

The observation of Miklós Hagyó, 1st accused, to the testimony of Ernő Mesterházy on September 20, 2012

Miklós Hagyó, first defendant, responded to Ernő Mesterházy's testimony at Kecskemét Tribunal in September the 20th, 2012:

The defense counsel of Miklós Hagyó, first defendant:

Before ordering a break I ask that the court explain the confession's second sentence of the fourth paragraph located in the investigative documents Volume 63. on page 41.449/A.

Chairman of the Council, in accordance with the petition, describes the investigative documents 41.449./A. designated portion of the page. To the question of the chairman, the prosecutor, the accused and the defense in unity declare that they do not ask for further explanation about the investigative testimony of second defendant.

The Chairman of the Council at 11:16 AM orders a short break. Then at 11:.. AM the hearing continues in the courtroom with that written on pages 44-45 and on 47.

The response of Miklós Hagyó, first defendant:

I did not get to an easily emotional situation, since what has been said by Mr. Mesterházy, as well as what you read out, brought about those memories which I experienced myself as a victim of being reprimanded in custody just like Ernő Mesterházy, and in fact only those who have suffered because of some unfortunate circumstances are able to understand what it means to spend 24 hours in police detention at Gyorskocsi Street. I went through it. These were disturbing experiences. That which Mr. Mesterházy said, that I had personal involvement, was an additional burden in this regard. I do not wish to comment.

However, at the advice of my defense counsel, in factual matters I must adequately inform the President of the Chamber and the Tribunal. All I want to say is that in many cases,in the metropolitan municipality’s operation there were facts, objective facts, which were clarified by the procedural system as the submissions were born. At BKV consultations, in consultation procedures with departments, and at General Assembly meetings Ernő Mesterházy was not present. He wasn't a member of any of these forums. He had a political role. He could not remember these, so I'm forced to make some clarifications.

First of all, on page 41.415/B. Mr. Mesterházy said in his testimony that these had two very strong expressions. One of them was that Miklós Hagyó, practically without consultation, convened a press conference and announced the recall of Aba Botond. It is a question, in fact, that for this press conference the invitation was sent by Lord Mayor Mr. Gábor Demszky and his staff on December the 15th, 2006. This was one day after I had been elected as Deputy Mayor. This was our first joint press release with the Lord Mayor, and of course every single detail of it (I stress that this was my first day as DM) we discussed with the Lord Mayor and with his colleagues. Here I announced the intention to recall Aba Botond. I would also like to say here that for weeks, months, without a doubt I had already appealed to the mayor for his various articles on news sites and various statements that Aba Botond must leave. So as we approach this fact, in this respect, the facts are the ones that I here and now describe.

The second statement on page 41.415/B, according to which is related to the EU grants development project’s management established an independent office, with which also led his own entrusted man without having to deal with anyone.

Here I definitely should point out that the metropolitan municipality organization and the operational rules, to the best of my recollection, the powers of the changes were under the General Assembly, especially if the establishment of a new department concerned would take place.

Thus, if the required documents for the President of the Chamber were requested, then undoubtedly it would turn out that this proposal also went through the necessary coordination and consultation process, such as the Mayor's Cabinet meeting that also dealt with this issue, and for this reason it was clear that the mayor and the SZDSZ supported it. Without the vote and approval, the establishment of such a department was not possible.

I would like also to establish the facts as outlined by you in the morning according to the rules of organization and operation, as well as the 512/2007. The mayor's measure shows that professional supervision of the department, the Mayor, together with Mr. Ikvai, were given to us. Thus, all by the department of professionally prepared submissions, we have signed together and after mutual consultation it went through the necessary, and frequently mentioned, consultation process at the metropolitan municipality. However, this is consistent with the reality, that in respect to the head of the department to the Lord Mayor and to the chief notary, I made a personal suggestion because I knew this person had impeccable professional backgrounds, and as I recall he was one of the senior staff of the Ministry of Agriculture of the EU Integration Department. The best I recall about the appointment of the Head of Department, the mayor and the chief notary had to sign together, and the employer's rights were practiced by the chief notary.

Concerning the statements described in respect with Attila Antal, I would like to confirm my oral and written testimony. I have described in detail that in which circumstances, after which procedure Attila Antal was elected the Municipal Assembly with the support of an overwhelming majority of the professional proposals were expressed. Referring to the circumstances of the dismissal of Attila Antal, I'd like to draw the President of the Chamber's attention to the document submitted by me, as well as described by you, which refers to a meeting of the Mayor's Cabinet in early March 2008, when relating to Attila Antal’s dismissal preparatory material in order to prepare, the mayor gave it to the chief notary. There was another Cabinet meeting in March or April 2008, and in personal issues we always decided together with Deputy Mayor Mr. Imre Ikvai-Szabó at the two Mayor's Cabinet meetings that have been mentioned, and we were jointly responsible for the tasks to be performed.

In connection with the appointment of Balogh, which is on page 41.421/B, that "based on the decision of Hagyó, Balogh became the acting CEO, and that most of the deputies belonged to the old pre-2006 leadership, whom they did not trust so he elected Balogh." It was a question, in fact, about the appointment of Mr. Balogh that the BKV Board of Directors decided, which was delegated by the president of the SZDSZ , Mr. Tóthfalusi, four members of the delegation were part of the SZDSZ, four from the MSZP, and two Government delegates. Documents show that it was a collective decision in such an unambiguous way.

It is also a fact that at that time already marked by Mr. Antal, because of a transformation project, an entirely new management structure was established consisting of four deputy CEOs. They were like structural pillars. The fifth was also the Deputy CEO of BKV, but he directly only took care of issues related to Metro4. These four deputies were in February 2008, Miklós Regőczi, Norbert Tóth, László Somodi and Zsolt Balogh. So none of them were the old, pre-2006 CEOs. All of them were appointed, as already has been said, during the time of Attila Antal.

Relating to the part of my testimony in connection with Éva Horváth, I reserve my written and oral testimony, and have explained in detail that I got to know her as a colleague of BKV, and from early 2008, if I remember correctly from February 1st, she helped the work of the mayor's and my cabinets with her advice. Explicitly it states that the management of BKV did not have any power and in no way I exceeded my powers, therefore I didn't instruct any of the BKV CEOs to direct control of the internal affairs of BKV. I did not have any say, and I did not give instructions.

I would like to emphasize a very important fact. In the testimony of Mr. Ernő Mesterházy, he talks about company "A". If I think correctly, it must be AAM. What he is talking about in his testimony, it is not the accusation of the contract dated on the 24th of January 2007, of which I am accused at that moment, but the concluded contract on the 22nd of December 2007. For a five-year framework, it was incidentally related to the investigative testimony of mine, my written and oral testimony in this regard is fully supported. I have only one factual issue, at the advice of my attorney, protection of vital questions now critically reflected. However, in the future if I need further additions in the form of comments, I would like to do so at a later stage.

The Chairman of the Council in relation of Ernő Mesterházy, second defendant, describes the investigative file of the Mayor's Office in Annex Mayor's Office Volume 2. Cooperation Agreement established on the 1st of September 2006, and the related memorandum of the person responsible for co-coordinating the designation, and the dated on the 27th of February 2007 request of Imre Ikvai-Szabó, to the Mayor's Office of Governmental Coordination Centre (pages DVD 371-375.)

Ernő Mesterházy, second defendant, to the question from the Council President:

I do not wish to comment.

The defense counsel of Miklós Hagyó, first defendant:

I request a short description namely from the 1st Volume of the Mayor's Office documents, decisions No.145/2008. and No. 146/2008.of the Mayor's Cabinet on the day of the 31st of March 2008, and the decision No. 196/2008. taken on the 14th of May 2008.

Chairman of the Council read the above decisions.

Other proposals or observations have not been made. The President declares the interrogation of Second Defendant as completed.

The observation of Miklós Hagyó, 1st accused, to the testimony of Ernő Mesterházy at Kecskemét Tribunal in September the 20th, 2012:

The defense counsel of Miklós Hagyó, 1st accused:

Before ordering a break I ask that the court explain the confession's second sentence of the fourth paragraph located in the investigative documents Volume 63. on page 41.449/A.

Chairman of the Council, in accordance with the petition, describes the investigative documents 41.449./A. designated portion of the page. To the question of the chairman, the prosecutor, the accused and the defense in unity declare that they do not ask for further explanation about the investigative testimony of second defendant.

The Chairman of the Council at 11:16 AM orders a short break. Then at 11:.. AM the hearing continues in the courtroom with that written on pages 44-45 and on 47.

The response of Miklós Hagyó, first defendant:

I did not get to an easily emotional situation, since what has been said by Mr. Mesterházy, as well as what you read out, brought about those memories which I experienced myself as a victim of being reprimanded in custody just like Ernő Mesterházy, and in fact only those who have suffered because of some unfortunate circumstances are able to understand what it means to spend 24 hours in police detention at Gyorskocsi Street. I went through it. These were disturbing experiences. That which Mr. Mesterházy said, that I had personal involvement, was an additional burden in this regard. I do not wish to comment.

However, at the advice of my defense counsel, in factual matters I must adequately inform the President of the Chamber and the Tribunal. All I want to say is that in many cases,in the metropolitan municipality’s operation there were facts, objective facts, which were clarified by the procedural system as the submissions were born. At BKV consultations, in consultation procedures with departments, and at General Assembly meetings Ernő Mesterházy was not present. He wasn't a member of any of these forums. He had a political role. He could not remember these, so I'm forced to make some clarifications.

First of all, on page 41.415/B. Mr. Mesterházy said in his testimony that these had two very strong expressions. One of them was that Miklós Hagyó, practically without consultation, convened a press conference and announced the recall of Aba Botond. It is a question, in fact, that for this press conference the invitation was sent by Lord Mayor Mr. Gábor Demszky and his staff on December the 15th, 2006. This was one day after I had been elected as Deputy Mayor. This was our first joint press release with the Lord Mayor, and of course every single detail of it (I stress that this was my first day as DM) we discussed with the Lord Mayor and with his colleagues. Here I announced the intention to recall Aba Botond. I would also like to say here that for weeks, months, without a doubt I had already appealed to the mayor for his various articles on news sites and various statements that Aba Botond must leave. So as we approach this fact, in this respect, the facts are the ones that I here and now describe.

The second statement on page 41.415/B, according to which is related to the EU grants development project’s management established an independent office, with which also led his own entrusted man without having to deal with anyone.

Here I definitely should point out that the metropolitan municipality organization and the operational rules, to the best of my recollection, the powers of the changes were under the General Assembly, especially if the establishment of a new department concerned would take place.

Thus, if the required documents for the President of the Chamber were requested, then undoubtedly it would turn out that this proposal also went through the necessary coordination and consultation process, such as the Mayor's Cabinet meeting that also dealt with this issue, and for this reason it was clear that the mayor and the SZDSZ supported it. Without the vote and approval, the establishment of such a department was not possible.

I would like also to establish the facts as outlined by you in the morning according to the rules of organization and operation, as well as the 512/2007. The mayor's measure shows that professional supervision of the department, the Mayor, together with Mr. Ikvai, were given to us. Thus, all by the department of professionally prepared submissions, we have signed together and after mutual consultation it went through the necessary, and frequently mentioned, consultation process at the metropolitan municipality. However, this is consistent with the reality, that in respect to the head of the department to the Lord Mayor and to the chief notary, I made a personal suggestion because I knew this person had impeccable professional backgrounds, and as I recall he was one of the senior staff of the Ministry of Agriculture of the EU Integration Department. The best I recall about the appointment of the Head of Department, the mayor and the chief notary had to sign together, and the employer's rights were practiced by the chief notary.

Concerning the statements described in respect with Attila Antal, I would like to confirm my oral and written testimony. I have described in detail that in which circumstances, after which procedure Attila Antal was elected the Municipal Assembly with the support of an overwhelming majority of the professional proposals were expressed. Referring to the circumstances of the dismissal of Attila Antal, I'd like to draw the President of the Chamber's attention to the document submitted by me, as well as described by you, which refers to a meeting of the Mayor's Cabinet in early March 2008, when relating to Attila Antal’s dismissal preparatory material in order to prepare, the mayor gave it to the chief notary. There was another Cabinet meeting in March or April 2008, and in personal issues we always decided together with Deputy Mayor Mr. Imre Ikvai-Szabó at the two Mayor's Cabinet meetings that have been mentioned, and we were jointly responsible for the tasks to be performed.

In connection with the appointment of Balogh, which is on page 41.421/B, that "based on the decision of Hagyó, Balogh became the acting CEO, and that most of the deputies belonged to the old pre-2006 leadership, whom they did not trust so he elected Balogh." It was a question, in fact, about the appointment of Mr. Balogh that the BKV Board of Directors decided, which was delegated by the president of the SZDSZ , Mr. Tóthfalusi, four members of the delegation were part of the SZDSZ, four from the MSZP, and two Government delegates. Documents show that it was a collective decision in such an unambiguous way.

It is also a fact that at that time already marked by Mr. Antal, because of a transformation project, an entirely new management structure was established consisting of four deputy CEOs. They were like structural pillars. The fifth was also the Deputy CEO of BKV, but he directly only took care of issues related to Metro4. These four deputies were in February 2008, Miklós Regőczi, Norbert Tóth, László Somodi and Zsolt Balogh. So none of them were the old, pre-2006 CEOs. All of them were appointed, as already has been said, during the time of Attila Antal.

Relating to the part of my testimony in connection with Éva Horváth, I reserve my written and oral testimony, and have explained in detail that I got to know her as a colleague of BKV, and from early 2008, if I remember correctly from February 1st, she helped the work of the mayor's and my cabinets with her advice. Explicitly it states that the management of BKV did not have any power and in no way I exceeded my powers, therefore I didn't instruct any of the BKV CEOs to direct control of the internal affairs of BKV. I did not have any say, and I did not give instructions.

I would like to emphasize a very important fact. In the testimony of Mr. Ernő Mesterházy, he talks about company "A". If I think correctly, it must be AAM. What he is talking about in his testimony, it is not the accusation of the contract dated on the 24th of January 2007, of which I am accused at that moment, but the concluded contract on the 22nd of December 2007. For a five-year framework, it was incidentally related to the investigative testimony of mine, my written and oral testimony in this regard is fully supported. I have only one factual issue, at the advice of my attorney, protection of vital questions now critically reflected. However, in the future if I need further additions in the form of comments, I would like to do so at a later stage.

The Chairman of the Council in relation of Ernő Mesterházy, second defendant, describes the investigative file of the Mayor's Office in Annex Mayor's Office Volume 2. Cooperation Agreement established on the 1st of September 2006, and the related memorandum of the person responsible for co-coordinating the designation, and the dated on the 27th of February 2007 request of Imre Ikvai-Szabó, to the Mayor's Office of Governmental Coordination Centre (pages DVD 371-375.)

Ernő Mesterházy, second defendant, to the question from the Council President:

I do not wish to comment.

The defense counsel of Miklós Hagyó, first defendant:

I request a short description namely from the 1st Volume of the Mayor's Office documents, decisions No.145/2008. and No. 146/2008.of the Mayor's Cabinet on the day of the 31st of March 2008, and the decision No. 196/2008. taken on the 14th of May 2008.

Chairman of the Council read the above decisions.

Other proposals or observations have not been made. The President declares the interrogation of Second Defendant as completed.